List payments

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral content: payments with no paid_at are dropped when a bound is set, stored card details are never returned, and include_contact_details controls redaction of emails, phones, NHS-shaped digits and postcodes. These are non-obvious semantics an agent could not get from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the most consequential constraint (paid_at omission) is embedded early. The phrasing 'Filters sent as documented' is slightly awkward and the opening is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the returned fields. Pagination is left to the schema's cursor/max_results descriptions, and the redaction and null-paid_at behaviors are covered — adequate for a six-parameter read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents cursor, paid_at bounds and max_results. The description reinforces the paid_at omission rule and the redaction behavior of include_contact_details, but adds little on syntax or formats beyond the schema; the 'minor currency units' note describes a return field, not a parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource (payments) and enumerates exactly what each record carries — status, amount, method/payor type, invoice and patient ids, refunds — which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_invoices and list_bookings. It never uses an explicit verb such as 'List', but the scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives (get_invoice, list_invoices, get_patient) or of any prerequisites. 'Filters sent as documented' gestures at filter usage but the guidance is implicit, and nothing tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.